1. COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY ATTITUDES AND CONCERNS ABOUT STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT Janet Fontenot, Ed.D. Southwestern Illinois College

2. WHY?

3. HIGHER LEARNING COMMISSION “Among the public’s many expectation of higher education, the most basic is that student will learn, and in particular that they will learn what they need to know to attain personal success and fulfill their public responsibilities in the Twenty-first Century” (NCA-HLC, 2003).

4. ILLINOIS BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION IBHE Illinois Commitment Goal 5: “All academic programs will systematically assess student learning and use assessment results to improve programs.” (ICCB, 2011)

5. ILLINOIS COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD Illinois Community College Board Recognition Manual: ICCB Rule 1501.405 “A system of evaluating and recording student performance in courses shall be in effect as per district policies and shall be available for review.” (ICCB, 2011)

6. COMMUNITY COLLEGE CHALLENGES Multiple missions Student characteristics Absence of programs in baccalaureate majors Alternative learning venues

7. COMMUNITY COLLEGE CHALLENGES Limited professional support (IR) Low faculty interest and engagement Large numbers of adjunct faculty Collective bargaining agreements (Nunley et al., 2011)

8. Why Faculty?

9. FACULTY ROLE All regional accrediting organizations except one (SACS) stipulate faculty involvement Define the learning outcomes Determine evaluation methods Create plans for using results for improvement of student learning

10. FACULTY ROLE Higher Learning Commission’s Statement on Assessment of Student Learning: “…faculty members, with meaningful input from students and strong support from the administration and governing board, should have the fundamental role in developing and sustaining systematic assessment of student learning.” (NCA-HLC, 2003)

11. CHALLENGES Gaining faculty involvement is still a major challenge for institutions (Hutchings, 2010; Kinzie, 2010; Kuh & Ikenberry, 2009) Community college faculty particularly challenged by demands for assessment (Bers, 2004; Ewell, 2011; Grubb, 1999; Nunley et al., 2011; Townsend & Twombly, 2007)

12. FACULTY RESISTANCE Assessment not linked to what faculty do (Banta, 1999) Assessment is an external mandate and considered by some to be a threat (Kuh & Ikenberry, 2009)

13. FACULTY RESISTANCE Little delineation between assessment for accountability and assessment for improvement (Grunwald & Peterson, 2003) Mandates for assessment is a change for faculty (Gray, 1997)

14. FACULTY STAGES OF ASSESSMENT Denial Anger Bargaining Depression Acceptance ( Miller, 2012)

15. ACCOUNTABILITY OR IMPROVEMENT?

16. ATTITUDES AND LEVELS OF INVOLVEMENT Faculty participate more willingly and at higher levels in SLOA when they perceive a benefit (Banta, 1999, 2002; Banta & Blaich, 2011; Blaich & Wise, 2011; Ewell et al., 2011, Grunwald & Peterson, 2003; Hutchings, 2010; Nunley et al., 2011)

17. FACULTY ATTITUDES Study conducted Spring semester 2011 Four Illinois Community Colleges 528 full-time teaching faculty (53% response rate) Measured levels of involvement, attitudes, and concerns

18. ATTITUDE AND LEVELS OF INVOLVEMENT Grunwald & Peterson (2003) NCPI (1997) original concept Includes Faculty Attitudes as part of Institutional Context Attitudes relate to Satisfaction with and Involvement in SLOA Concerns-Based Adoption Model Developed to examine how individuals react to change (Hall et al., 1973) Relationship between Stages of Concern and Levels of Use

19. FACULTY ATTITUDES From an educational standpoint, it is necessary for us to monitor what students learn (M 3.43) The effectiveness of teaching is enhanced when faculty regularly assess students (M 3.26) Student assessment is more effective when determined by the faculty rather than by the institution (M 3.23)

20. FACULTY ATTITUDES Students today are learning more due to an institutional focus on the assessment of student learning (M 2.31) State or federally mandated assessment requirements improve quality of education (M 2.13)

21. FACULTY CONCERNS Time a major factor Processes being developed by non-faculty Externally motivated Lack of trust about use of results

22. FACULTY CONCERNS Results may impact employment status Responsibilities not shared by all faculty Disciplinary differences

23. RECOMMENDATIONS Institutional leaders support assessment efforts Openly share assessment information Build capacity for assessment Strive to make assessment routine

24. RECOMMENDATIONS Explore opportunities for providing release time for faculty to conduct assessment Include part-time faculty in assessment Encourage cross-disciplinary involvement

25. RECOMMENDATIONS Provide faculty development opportunities focused on assessment Subsets of faculty participation are acceptable Become knowledgeable about assessment (National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment)

26. RECOMMENDATIONS Ask faculty what they need!

27. REFERENCES Banta, T. W. (1999). Involving faculty in assessment. In T. W. Banta (Ed.), Assessment update: The first ten years (pp. 14–16). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Banta, T. W. (2002). Characteristics of effective outcomes assessment: Foundations and examples. In T. W. Banta & Associates (Eds.), Building a scholarship of assessment (pp. 261–283). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Banta, T. W., & Blaich, C. F. (2011, January/February). Closing the assessment loop. Change, 43(1), 22–27. doi:0.1080/00091383.2011.538642 Bers, T. H. (2004). Assessment at the program level. In A. M. Serban & J. Friedlander (Eds.), Developing and Implementing Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes: New Directions for Community Colleges (No. 126, pp. 43–52). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bers, T. H. (2004). Assessment at the program level. In A. M. Serban & J. Friedlander (Eds.), Developing and Implementing Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes: New Directions for Community Colleges (No. 126, pp. 43–52). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

28. Blaich, C. F., & Wise, K. S. (2011, January). From gathering to using assessment results: Lessons from the Wabash National Study (Occasional Paper No. 8). Champaign, IL: National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. Retrieved from http://learningoutcomesassessment.org/occasionalpapereight.htm Ewell, P. T. (2011). Accountability and institutional effectiveness in the community college. In R. B. Head (Ed.), Institutional effectiveness: New directions for community colleges (No. 153, pp. 23–36). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/cc.434 Ewell, P., Paulson, K., & Kinzie, J. (2011, June). Down and in: Assessment practices at the program level. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA). Retrieved from http://www.learningoutcomeassessment.org/NILOAsurveyresults11.htm Gray, P. J. (1997). Viewing assessment as an innovation: Leadership and the change process. New directions for higher education (No. 100, pp. 5–15). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Grubb, W. N., & Associates. (1999). Honored but invisible: An inside look at teaching in community colleges. New York, NY: Routledge.

29. Grunwald, H., & Peterson, M. W. (2003, April). Factors that promote faculty involvement in and satisfaction with institutional and classroom student assessment. Research in Higher Education, 44(2), 173–204. Hall, G. E., Wallace, R. C., Jr., & Dossett, W. A. (1973). A developmental conceptualization of the adoption process within educational institutions. Austin: University of Texas at Austin, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED095126) Hutchings, P. (2010, April). Opening doors to faculty involvement in assessment (NILOA Occasional Paper No. 4). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. Retrieved from http://learningoutcomesassessment.org/documents/PatHutchings.pdf Illinois Community College Board (ICCB) (2011). Recognition manual for the Illinois public community college districts: Fiscal years 2011-2015. Kinzie, J. (2010, October). Perspectives from campus leaders on the current state of student learning outcomes assessment: NILOA focus group summary 2009–2010. Champaign, IL: National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. Retrieved from http://learningoutcomesassessment.org/documents/FocusGroupFinal.pdf

30. Kuh, G., & Ikenberry, S. (2009). More than you think, less than we need: Learning outcomes assessment in American higher education. Champaign, IL: National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. Miller, M. A. (2012, January). From denial to acceptance: The stages of assessment. (NILOA Occasional Paper No. 13) Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. Retrieved from: http://learningoutcomesassessment.org/occasionalpaperthirteen.htmhttp://learningoutcomesassessment.org/occasionalpaperthirteen.htm North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, The Higher Learning Commission (NCA-HLC). (2003). Commission statement on assessment of student learning. Retrieved from http://www.ncahlc.org/information-for-institutions/publications.html Nunley, C. Bers, T., & Manning, T. (2011, July). Learning outcomes assessment in community colleges (NILOA Occasional Paper No.10). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. Retrieved from http://learningoutcomesassessment.org/documents/CommunityCollege.pdf Townsend, B. K., & Twombly, S. B. (2007). Community college faculty: Overlooked and undervalued (ASHE Higher Education Report, Vol. 32, No. 6). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.